Title
Consideration of Citizen Petition Related to 3818 E. Glenrosa Ave.
Description
This report provides the City Council with information in response to a citizen petition submitted by Mr. Ed Aboud at the Sept. 19, 2018 Formal City Council meeting regarding 3818 E. Glenrosa Ave. (Attachment A).
Report
Summary
Mr. Aboud presented a petition regarding the demolition of an existing home and the construction of a new residence at 3818 E. Glenrosa Ave. He requested that the City Council commission an independent agency or company to investigate the construction at this address and other unspecified residential parcels in the area and the Planning and Development Department's (PDD) role in permitting and inspecting the project.
The parcel in question is part of a single-family subdivision called Kachina Gardens, located near the intersection of Indian School Road and 40th Street, that was developed in the 1950s and consisted primarily of single-story, masonry block homes with carports, ranging in size from 1,500 to 1,900 square feet. As the local housing market steadily recovered over the past several years, many owners of the original homes sold to new property owners that chose to demolish the original structures to construct newer, larger residences with features in demand from current buyers including enclosed garages, raised ceilings, open floor plans and more interior livable space.
The original home at 3818 E. Glenrosa Ave. was reportedly demolished in mid 2016. PDD staff does not have an exact date because the owner did not purchase a required demolition permit before doing that work. Plans for a new 2,800-square-foot home were submitted in Fall 2017 and the permit to build the new home was issued in November 2017. Construction began in January 2018, with several inspections requested over the next several months. In April 2018, an inspector on a regularly scheduled inspection was approached by a neighbor who raised concerns about the new home's overall size, its orientation on the lot and its proximity to the various property boundary setbacks, particularly in relation to the western property line. Several other neighbors, including Mr. Aboud, eventually joined the original complainant to communicate with the City about multiple aspects of the project. Over the course of several months staff held multiple meetings with neighbors and responded to multiple calls and e-mails to answer questions about the project. Listed below are additional details on these efforts:
Public Outreach
At the request of the original complainant, six PDD staff representing the inspections, site planning, and plan review sections attended a community meeting on April 25 at a residence across the street from the home in question. Approximately a dozen residents attended to voice their concerns and ask questions about the project and the development and inspection processes. Staff met separately with Mr. Aboud and two other area residents on May 10 to respond to remaining concerns and questions about the construction. Staff also responded to multiple follow up phone calls and e-mails requesting information on details of the project.
Additional Staff Review
Given concerns from neighbors, staff did extensive additional review of the plans submitted by the owner and his licensed architect. Through this process, staff identified an error the owner's architect made in computing the rear setback and halted construction on the project. At a meeting at City Hall on May 17, staff met with the owner, the general contractor and the licensed architect to discuss their options for making the home compliant with the rear zoning setback. In response to neighbor questions, staff also did historical research on the original platted subdivision to verify the lot size and confirm that the new home met lot coverage limits. PDD staff requested the owner have sealed surveys completed to show the location of the western property line and to confirm that the home's eastern and rear foundations were setback compliant. PDD staff also had an independent property survey commissioned with a City-contracted surveyor to verify the measurements on the owner's revised sealed surveys. Permits were issued based upon the original plans that were submitted and staff placed a stop work order on the parcel to require that the plans be revised to meet City codes and requirements.
New Owner/Contractor Requirements
The owner redesigned the rear of the house and submitted new plans to meet the required rear setback. As a result of the redesign, the owner's contractor demolished and rebuilt sections of the partially constructed home to meet the rear setback requirements because staff required it be done to meet code requirements. The owner also was required to purchase two demolition permits: one to apply retroactively to the original home demolition, which created a legal record of that demolition, and a separate demolition permit to cover the removal of portions of the new structure in the rear setback.
General Project Facts
The building permit (RSF 17032362) was issued on Nov. 7, 2017. Since construction began, inspectors have completed 22 inspections and made six additional visits to respond to inquiries or concerns from neighbors. The owner completed plan reviews for both the construction and on-site grading and drainage, which includes construction of on-site retention basins to handle storm water flows.
Other Issues
A major source of contention, and a primary issue in Mr. Aboud's petition, was the property owner's removal of a portion of existing wood fence between 3818 and the adjacent home to the west at 3810 E. Glenrosa Ave. According to neighbors, the owner of 3818 and his general contractor -- without any prior notice or communication to the owner of 3810 -- removed this wood fence during home construction and replaced it with a section of block wall to connect to an existing block wall that separated the rear yards.
The location, condition and maintenance of property boundary walls, are a source of questions from residents. Though permits are required for construction of certain walls and inspectors check their construction, it is residents' sole responsibility to verify the property line location and to have a survey conducted when necessary to verify that location. Staff reminds applicants acquiring fence permits that they should take appropriate steps to avoid disagreements over a wall's location and that any resulting disputes are a purely private, civil matter to which the City is not a party. This fact is noted in the Fence Permit Application (Attachment B) and the department's fence inspection policy. The reported actions of the owner of 3818 apparently were taken without good faith notice and communication with the neighbor, a longtime resident of the neighborhood, and created discord with neighbors already sensitive to changes in their neighborhood. They were not, however, a violation of any City code provision. To address the neighbors' concerns, PDD staff required the owner to obtain one of the previously mentioned surveys to verify that the new wall was built entirely on their property. This was verified by their revised survey and an independent survey conducted by the City contracted surveyor.
Staff Follow-up
PDD staff researched construction plan and permit histories for approximately two dozen residential building projects in the general vicinity, including several identified by the concerned neighbors, that were either under construction or recently completed. In the review, staff confirmed all of the projects are compliant with lot coverage and property line setbacks.
Location
3818 E. Glenrosa Ave.
Council District: 6
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Planning and Development Department.